Hey,
scenario: 5 player game, prey has 8 pool.
you call parity shift, and allocate 5 pool: 3 to yourself, 1 to your
predator, and one to your grandpredator.
you play business pressure. Your prey burns 4 pool, bringing him down
to 4, and causing the vote to be failing by two (taking into account
other table votes).
Now you bewitching oration, so it passes.
They only have 4 pool to allocate, and you allocated it 3-1-1.
do you get to choose who doesn't get the extra pool?
oh, and then your predator plays a wake and tries to block at this
point...no, wait, wrong thread...
thanks,
salem.
Since I'm often wrong, might as well throw in MY view...
The allocation is done before the vote, the prey loses pool at end of
successful vote. The amount of pool does not specifically come from
the "target's" pool, but rather is based on it. The end effect of the
card is that the "target" loses the amount at the end...the allocated
amounts are aquired as specified at the end of the vote (success).
This was probably not the intention of the card (since they couldn't
forsee every expansion), but it works for me.
.
[ quoted text not captured ]
salem christ wrote:
>
> Hey,
>
> scenario: 5 player game, prey has 8 pool.
> you call parity shift, and allocate 5 pool: 3 to yourself, 1 to your
> predator, and one to your grandpredator.
> you play business pressure. Your prey burns 4 pool, bringing him down
> to 4, and causing the vote to be failing by two (taking into account
> other table votes).
> Now you bewitching oration, so it passes.
> They only have 4 pool to allocate, and you allocated it 3-1-1.
> do you get to choose who doesn't get the extra pool?
Interesting.
Sure - split it up however you (the Meth who called the referendum) like
(within the bounds of the stated allocation).
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
> salem christ wrote:>>
>> Hey,
>>
>> scenario: 5 player game, prey has 8 pool.
>> you call parity shift, and allocate 5 pool: 3 to yourself, 1 to your
>> predator, and one to your grandpredator.
>> you play business pressure. Your prey burns 4 pool, bringing him down
>> to 4, and causing the vote to be failing by two (taking into account
>> other table votes).
>> Now you bewitching oration, so it passes.
>> They only have 4 pool to allocate, and you allocated it 3-1-1.
>> do you get to choose who doesn't get the extra pool?>
> Interesting.
> Sure - split it up however you (the Meth who called the referendum) like
> (within the bounds of the stated allocation).
Is that a gut instinct or an official ruling?
--
Pat Ricochet
Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta
"You can't make a fact out of an opinion by raising your voice."
LSJ wrote:
>
> salem christ wrote:
> >
> > Hey,
> >
> > scenario: 5 player game, prey has 8 pool.
> > you call parity shift, and allocate 5 pool: 3 to yourself, 1 to your
> > predator, and one to your grandpredator.
> > you play business pressure. Your prey burns 4 pool, bringing him down
> > to 4, and causing the vote to be failing by two (taking into account
> > other table votes).
> > Now you bewitching oration, so it passes.
> > They only have 4 pool to allocate, and you allocated it 3-1-1.
> > do you get to choose who doesn't get the extra pool?
>
> Interesting.
> Sure - split it up however you (the Meth who called the referendum) like
> (within the bounds of the stated allocation).
>
Why doesn't it come from the blood bank? It's not as if the blood bank
was emptied by paying out the first four pool.
Rob Grau
rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu
[ quoted text not captured ]
Card text.
"Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Prince or Justicar at +1
stealth. Choose a Methuselah who has more blood in his or her pool than you
do. {Allocate X OF THAT POOL among the other remaining Methuselahs
(including you), where X is the number of Methuselahs in the game}.
Successful <referendum> means the chosen Methuselah loses {that pool, and it
is allocated as you announced}."
It's not just a number of pool gained and lost, like Ancient Influence.
The source of the pool counters is the targeted pool, not the blood bank.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3B1E7868...@unity.ncsu.edu>,
[ quoted text not captured ]
Because Parity Shift's effect doesn't involve the blood bank at all, Jack
Crow's misinterpretation notwithstanding. Parity Shift redistributes
pool _belonging to a named Methuselah_ among the playing Methuselahs
as determined by the Shifting player. Can't allocate what's no longer
there. Blood bank doesn't enter into it. If the Shifted player burnt
all her pool to Business Pressure, _no one_ would gain _squat_, except
for the Shifted player's predator, who'd get the oust bonus as normal.
gomi
--
the direction of the eye
so misleading
the corruption of the soul
nauseously quick
[ quoted text not captured ]
The pool is targeted at the beginning of the referendum. One of the
targeted pool's source just happens to change to the blood bank when it
is spent through business pressure. The targeted pool then comes out of
the blood bank when the referendum passes. I think that meets all of the
card text requirements.
Rob Grau
rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu
In message <3B1E8881...@unity.ncsu.edu>, Robert Franklin Grau
<rfg...@unity.ncsu.edu> writes
>The pool is targeted at the beginning of the referendum. One of the
>targeted pool's source just happens to change to the blood bank when it
>is spent through business pressure.
Bad idea.
"I'm not ousted. I still have 30 pool! It's just all 'changed'."
--
James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
"You reinstall Dial-Up Networking. The Elf screams and becomes EBD690ECD7A1F
an icon. *** CONGRATULATIONS! *** You completed the BT Internet B457CA213D7E6
Helpdesk training course in 15 out of a possible 9000 moves." 68C3695D623D5D
Pat Ricochet wrote:
>
> > salem christ wrote:
> >>
> >> Hey,
> >>
> >> scenario: 5 player game, prey has 8 pool.
> >> you call parity shift, and allocate 5 pool: 3 to yourself, 1 to your
> >> predator, and one to your grandpredator.
> >> you play business pressure. Your prey burns 4 pool, bringing him down
> >> to 4, and causing the vote to be failing by two (taking into account
> >> other table votes).
> >> Now you bewitching oration, so it passes.
> >> They only have 4 pool to allocate, and you allocated it 3-1-1.
> >> do you get to choose who doesn't get the extra pool?
> >
> > Interesting.
> > Sure - split it up however you (the Meth who called the referendum) like
> > (within the bounds of the stated allocation).
>
> Is that a gut instinct or an official ruling?
I hope I'd label plain-jane (non-official) "gut instinct" rulings in a
clear way. :-)
The ruling above is official. I can see no other possible ruling that
would fit card text (except to come up with different, arbitrary ways
to divy up the available pool).
[ quoted text not captured ]
Robert Franklin Grau wrote:
> Pat Ricochet wrote:
> > "Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Prince or Justicar at +1
> > stealth. Choose a Methuselah who has more blood in his or her pool than you
> > do. {Allocate X OF THAT POOL among the other remaining Methuselahs
> > (including you), where X is the number of Methuselahs in the game}.
> > Successful <referendum> means the chosen Methuselah loses {that pool, and it
> > is allocated as you announced}."
> >
> > It's not just a number of pool gained and lost, like Ancient Influence.
> > The source of the pool counters is the targeted pool, not the blood bank.
> >
>
> The pool is targeted at the beginning of the referendum. One of the
> targeted pool's source just happens to change to the blood bank when it
> is spent through business pressure. The targeted pool then comes out of
> the blood bank when the referendum passes. I think that meets all of the
> card text requirements.
Can't lose more than you have. Likewise, you cannot use Life Boon to give
a player 40 pool when you have only 5.
The "passing through the blood bank" doesn't wash, since the blood in the
bank is not controlled by that Methuselah any more. Otherwise, if she
had 30 pool and you reallocated 5 of it, she could burn 5 on the Business
Pressure and then claim that those 5 were the pool targeted at the
beginning of the referendum.
--
[ quoted text not captured ]
One more question:
Why doesn't the Parity Shift fizzle when there isn't enough pool to be allocated
as announced? Most other game effects simply terminate when targets/items/etc
change between the time it is announced and the time it is resolved.
Yes, I do understand that to lose pool is not the same as a card cost. I'm not
worried about the pool loss so much as the reallocation because it seems so
arbitrary.
Rob Grau
rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu
[ quoted text not captured ]
>Robert Franklin Grau wrote:>> Pat Ricochet wrote:
>> > "Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Prince or Justicar at +1
>> > stealth. Choose a Methuselah who has more blood in his or her pool than>you>> > do. {Allocate X OF THAT POOL among the other remaining Methuselahs
>> > (including you), where X is the number of Methuselahs in the game}.
>> > Successful <referendum> means the chosen Methuselah loses {that pool, and>it>> > is allocated as you announced}."
>> >
>> > It's not just a number of pool gained and lost, like Ancient>Influence.>> > The source of the pool counters is the targeted pool, not the blood bank.
>> >
>>
>> The pool is targeted at the beginning of the referendum. One of the
>> targeted pool's source just happens to change to the blood bank when it
>> is spent through business pressure. The targeted pool then comes out of
>> the blood bank when the referendum passes. I think that meets all of the
>> card text requirements.>
>Can't lose more than you have. Likewise, you cannot use Life Boon to give
>a player 40 pool when you have only 5.
>
>The "passing through the blood bank" doesn't wash, since the blood in the
>bank is not controlled by that Methuselah any more.
It sounds like Rob is interested in starting a blood laundering business, eh?
=)
Halcyan 2
Rob Grau wrote:
>
> One more question:
>
> Why doesn't the Parity Shift fizzle when there isn't enough pool to be allocated
> as announced? Most other game effects simply terminate when targets/items/etc
> change between the time it is announced and the time it is resolved.
Not when you're dealing with counters. If you bleed your prey for 3 when she only has
2, the bleed doesn't fizzle. More closely, if you steal 2 blood from a vampire
who has only one, you still steal one. If you split a Conservative Agitation
4 to your prey and 1 to your grand prey and your prey burns 1 of her 4 pool for
Business Pressure, the CA doesn't fizzle - it still burns the remaining 3 of your
prey's pool (and 1 from your grand prey) if it passes.
> Yes, I do understand that to lose pool is not the same as a card cost. I'm not
> worried about the pool loss so much as the reallocation because it seems so
> arbitrary.
If you have a non-arbitrary way of handling it, I'm open to suggestions.
[ quoted text not captured ]